At this point the commemorative gold ship has sailed. At this point, there needs to be another way to get a $35 per coin surcharge. Since silver dollars have a $10 per coin surcharge, you can always have another silver dollar design that will sell more coins and bring higher surcharge revenue than a low mintage gold piece. Gold already has a higher entry barrier to collect than silver due to costs. People who buy one silver design are more inclined to buy the second silver design due to a lower barrier to buy it. The sales figures of the 2006 Franklin coins bear this out. Get rid of gold commemoratives and now it is a closed series.
Look at the Tubman gold sales 7,239 combined all finishes x 35 = 253,635 in surcharges
Look at the Tubman silver sales 33,019 combined all finishes x 10 = 330,190 in surcharges
Look at the Tubman clad sales 24,435 combined all finishes x 5 = 122,175 in surcharges
In terms of dollar amounts, clad actually performs worse than gold. So if we are fixing gold then we also need to fix clad which is why I suggested commemorative large cents with the same $5 surcharge per coin.
I did purchase five of the six Greatest Generations options, missing only the uncirculated gold. I did purchase four of the six Tubman options, skipping the gold coins. I am glad I bought the three piece gold set for "only" $836.
The price of gold being what it is, how many of the previous issues have been melted, rendering their populations lower than the Tubman uncs?
Several dealers have been selling the modern gold commems at bullion prices for many years. That's basically a liquidation. With Mint premiums greater than 35% on the buy side, the incentive is not to buy the newer issues, but to liquidate the older issues at melt.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
@jmski52 said:
The price of gold being what it is, how many of the previous issues have been melted, rendering their populations lower than the Tubman uncs?
Several dealers have been selling the modern gold commems at bullion prices for many years. That's basically a liquidation. With Mint premiums greater than 35% on the buy side, the incentive is not to buy the newer issues, but to liquidate the older issues at melt.
If a dealer has these in inventory and the spot price increases substantially, I can see they will sell it to a refiner, especially if they have a large(r) number tying up a lot of capital (to them). I read of this happening (2nd hand) with the First Spouse coins.
I just don't think it will make any long-term difference to the value as a collectible because this "scarcity" or "rarity" doesn't really increase the collectible appeal of this coinage. None of it is actually scarce (much less rare) and almost no collectors will pay high prices and keep it as a long-term hold for this reason. This is speculation, not collecting. I used to have this discussion with South African based collectors regularly when it was my primary collecting interest. It was obvious (virtually) none of them were actually interested in the coin as a collectible, only for "investment".
@jmlanzaf said:
Anyone who bought spouse coins from the Mint and is happy that they made money on the bullion is simply ignorant. They could have bought more actual bullion for the same money.
>
They were only ignorant of how things would play out in the future. No one at the time could have foreseen with any certainty how high gold would go, or how low mintages would go.
There is no sales report yet for this week due to New Years, maybe they get it out later, or next Tuesday at the latest. It will have the final weekly sales and should be close to final numbers. The true final numbers don't happen until the mint does an audit, and this is usually completed months later, but chances are the numbers will be very close to these (within a few coins). Since the sales numbers are historic lows, and they barely sold about 1,300 each, there should not be much discrepancy in them.
For those that missed out, the U.S. Marines commems go on sale tomorrow.
I remember in 1986 when the Statue of Liberty uncirculated gold $5 traded as high as $650 (around $2000 in today's dollars) due to its "insanely low" mintage of 95,000.
I have updated the sales numbers to the first week of 2025. These sales should be close to final numbers for the 2024 commemoratives. This means new record lows.
I will be happy if they keep going lower. That means the rarest modern coin set, and almost a top ten set by type in mint state going back over 100 years. If you take out the two panpac coins, you have to go back 200 years.
@HalfDime said:
I have updated the sales numbers to the first week of 2025. These sales should be close to final numbers for the 2024 commemoratives. This means new record lows.
Can you quote those for our benefit?
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
@HalfDime said:
I have updated the sales numbers to the first week of 2025. These sales should be close to final numbers for the 2024 commemoratives. This means new record lows.
Can you quote those for our benefit?
Hi,
Yes I put the final numbers in the original post. The latest is
@wondercoin said:
IF the Mint ended the $5 Gold Commem program next year, these “super low mintage gold coins” from 2024 would likely be exceedingly popular with collectors (and potentially exceedingly hard to find close to the final Mint price). But, what are the chances? Not high enough chance for us to raise our price on Tubman on eBay even when it is now the “champ”. They are still sitting on eBay at the same price as last month as we try to make a relatively tiny net return after eBay fees, PCGS fees, shipping fees and US Mint cost. Oh well- it’s only money.
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin.
I do think congress should stop authorizing $5 gold commemoratives. It is pretty clear that not many people are buying them. It is also pretty clear that congress generally cut and pastes the commemorative coin format from the 1986 Statue of Liberty program for many programs.
What I would do is limit modern gold coinage as a whole to a more select few classic designs. Think Saint Gaudens, maybe reissue Pan Pac gold, bring back $5 and $2.50 Indian, bring back $20 Liberty or even do a gold 1795-1807 capped bust coin.
For the commemoratives I would have maybe two silver dollars instead of one like how the 2006 Ben Franklin program was done. Instead of a clad half dollar, I would look into doing one or two modern large cent commemoratives in modern programs also. The large cents I envision would have the same diameter as a half dollar but either be pure copper or the pre 82 bronze composition. If we are doing a base metal numismatic coin, might as well revive a historic denomination that has been beloved. We did that for silver dollars.
Great ideas, but it wouldn't make a huge difference until they face the reality that their mark ups are too high. That makes the majority, especially limited budget collectors, be sour towards the mint and step back to reevaluate.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
@jmlanzaf said:
Anyone who bought spouse coins from the Mint and is happy that they made money on the bullion is simply ignorant. They could have bought more actual bullion for the same money.
>
They were only ignorant of how things would play out in the future. No one at the time could have foreseen with any certainty how high gold would go, or how low mintages would go.
Completely different point. They were ignorant, regardless of the future. They could have bought 30% more gold. Period. Whether gold went up or down or mintages went up or down. These were ALWAYS a horrible bullion play.
@HalfDime said:
I have updated the sales numbers to the first week of 2025. These sales should be close to final numbers for the 2024 commemoratives. This means new record lows.
Can you quote those for our benefit?
Hi,
Yes I put the final numbers in the original post. The latest is
**** The Harriet Tubman gold coin broke under 1,300, which is very good for collectors.
Why?
Martin
If I said this, what coin would you think of?
It's a major gold coin that sold poorly because of high cost, had an economic context, a limited appeal, and low demand. If it sounds familiar, it is not about the Harriet Tubman coin, but this is about the large 1915 PanPac gold coins.
High cost: The $50 coins were sold for $100 each, double their face value. This was prohibitively expensive for most people, considering the average American's annual income in 1915 was approximately $1,250.
Economic context: The coins were released during a time when $100 was a significant sum of money, making them accessible only to the wealthiest buyers.
Limited appeal: The coins were primarily of interest to collectors and wealthy individuals, rather than the general public.
Low demand: There was tepid demand for these commemorative coins, likely due to their high cost and limited practical use
Almost all of these could also be said for the Harriet Tubman coins. Eventually nobody will know why this coin only sold 1,293 coins, and they won't care. All that will matter is the final mintage and how many other coins like it compare. Yes, there is a chance another coin comes in lower, I have said how it might happen. But anyone who bought this coin should be happy as it is a great starting point for a major gold collection that is historic. Only about 11 other coins in the history of the mint have so few coins by type in mint state.
@HalfDime said:
anyone who bought this coin should be happy as it is a great starting point for a major gold collection that is historic. Only about 11 other coins in the history of the mint have so few coins by type in mint state.
The key words here are "mint state". A huge majority of collectors bought the proofs, even though the mint state coins were slightly cheaper and it was widely known that mint state commems typically have a much lower mintage. The price of the uncirculated 2024 gold commems will always be constrained by the higher availability of, and collector preference for, the much more available and nicer looking proofs.
@jmlanzaf said:
Anyone who bought spouse coins from the Mint and is happy that they made money on the bullion is simply ignorant. They could have bought more actual bullion for the same money.
>
They were only ignorant of how things would play out in the future. No one at the time could have foreseen with any certainty how high gold would go, or how low mintages would go.
Completely different point. They were ignorant, regardless of the future. They could have bought 30% more gold. Period. Whether gold went up or down or mintages went up or down. These were ALWAYS a horrible bullion play.
I'm not aware of anyone buying the First Spouse coins as a bullion play, since AGE's and other bullion coins were universally known to have a lower premium to gold. Purchasers of the First Spouse series were either collectors, or speculators betting on a low-mintage premium. For speculators, the chief advantage of the coins' gold content was to limit downside risk if the anticipated demand failed to materialize. That's exactly what eventually happened. The speculators were not "ignorant" at all, they were taking a knowledgeable calculated risk. They were wrong about the low-mintage premium, but they were absolutely correct about limiting their downside risk, and this extra "insurance" netted them a well-deserved profit despite the coins' collapse in demand.
‘’I'm not aware of anyone buying the First Spouse coins as a bullion play’’
Well I was very much aware of that play (as I was one of 2 dealers recommended to buy the coins from at that time in addition to auction houses, eBay, etc). The recommendation in or about late 2007 was made to about 69,000 paid subscribers to a newsletter at the time. Buy Jefferson Liberty MS Spouse coins to have “2 ways to win”. Way #1- the Liberty series gold coins go up numismatically. Way #2 - gold spot rises and the coins go up that way. Back then, the Mint (that released the coins on August 30, 2007) sold the 1/2 oz. coins for $429.95 (melt of $860/oz). Right now, the coins melt for nearly $2,700/oz. So, the coins more than tripled in gold value after failing numismatically. A source on the net just stated to me (but I can not verify this) that $430 invested in the S&P 500 index late 2007, is worth about $1,350 today (but might not account for “dividends”). Anyway, it appears this “bullion play” (“Way #2) roughly performed close to the S&P, even after the numismatic play failed miserably.
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@jmlanzaf said:
Anyone who bought spouse coins from the Mint and is happy that they made money on the bullion is simply ignorant. They could have bought more actual bullion for the same money.
>
They were only ignorant of how things would play out in the future. No one at the time could have foreseen with any certainty how high gold would go, or how low mintages would go.
Completely different point. They were ignorant, regardless of the future. They could have bought 30% more gold. Period. Whether gold went up or down or mintages went up or down. These were ALWAYS a horrible bullion play.
I'm not aware of anyone buying the First Spouse coins as a bullion play, since AGE's and other bullion coins were universally known to have a lower premium to gold. Purchasers of the First Spouse series were either collectors, or speculators betting on a low-mintage premium. For speculators, the chief advantage of the coins' gold content was to limit downside risk if the anticipated demand failed to materialize. That's exactly what eventually happened. The speculators were not "ignorant" at all, they were taking a knowledgeable calculated risk. They were wrong about the low-mintage premium, but they were absolutely correct about limiting their downside risk, and this extra "insurance" netted them a well-deserved profit despite the coins' collapse in demand.
The post i was responding to indicated that the buyers of the spouse coins would be very happy because the increase in gold price made them whole, despite the premium. As i first responded, there is no reason to be happy that you bought less bullion to benefit from the bullion increase. The numismatic premium was forever lost
@HalfDime said:
anyone who bought this coin should be happy as it is a great starting point for a major gold collection that is historic. Only about 11 other coins in the history of the mint have so few coins by type in mint state.
The key words here are "mint state". A huge majority of collectors bought the proofs, even though the mint state coins were slightly cheaper and it was widely known that mint state commems typically have a much lower mintage. The price of the uncirculated 2024 gold commems will always be constrained by the higher availability of, and collector preference for, the much more available and nicer looking proofs.
The proofs do not always look nicer, there is a certain character to mint state coins that proof coins lack. Depends on the coin really.
@jmlanzaf said:
Anyone who bought spouse coins from the Mint and is happy that they made money on the bullion is simply ignorant. They could have bought more actual bullion for the same money.
>
They were only ignorant of how things would play out in the future. No one at the time could have foreseen with any certainty how high gold would go, or how low mintages would go.
Completely different point. They were ignorant, regardless of the future. They could have bought 30% more gold. Period. Whether gold went up or down or mintages went up or down. These were ALWAYS a horrible bullion play.
I'm not aware of anyone buying the First Spouse coins as a bullion play, since AGE's and other bullion coins were universally known to have a lower premium to gold. Purchasers of the First Spouse series were either collectors, or speculators betting on a low-mintage premium. For speculators, the chief advantage of the coins' gold content was to limit downside risk if the anticipated demand failed to materialize. That's exactly what eventually happened. The speculators were not "ignorant" at all, they were taking a knowledgeable calculated risk. They were wrong about the low-mintage premium, but they were absolutely correct about limiting their downside risk, and this extra "insurance" netted them a well-deserved profit despite the coins' collapse in demand.
The post i was responding to indicated that the buyers of the spouse coins would be very happy because the increase in gold price made them whole, despite the premium. As i first responded, there is no reason to be happy that you bought less bullion to benefit from the bullion increase. The numismatic premium was forever lost
If someone bought the Spouse coins for the single purpose of benefiting from the bullion increase, your theory is correct. But that's not what happened. Any serious buyer of the Spouse coins was well aware of less expensive alternatives for a pure bullion play. They were willing to pay a premium for the Spouse coins for the chance of a rise in the numismatic premium. That bet did not pay off, but that does not make Spouse coin buyers "ignorant". It's likely that most of them owned pure bullion coins also, and their Spouse holdings amounted to a side bet on the numismatic premium. There is plenty of reason for Spouse buyers to be happy the way things turned out.
If someone bought the Spouse coins for the single purpose of benefiting from the bullion increase, your theory is correct. But that's not what happened. Any serious buyer of the Spouse coins was well aware of less expensive alternatives for a pure bullion play. They were willing to pay a premium for the Spouse coins for the chance of a rise in the numismatic premium. That bet did not pay off, but that does not make Spouse coin buyers "ignorant". It's likely that most of them owned pure bullion coins also, and their Spouse holdings amounted to a side bet on the numismatic premium. There is plenty of reason for Spouse buyers to be happy the way things turned out.
This is exactly the case, I think.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
This weeks sales report only shows a drop of one coin for the Harriet Tubman Gold UNC coin, from 1,293 to 1,292. The numbers in the original post have been updated. The Greatest Generation gold UNC was unchanged.
Here is an interesting development. The USMC gold unc sales for the second week saw a sharp drop (now only at 653), and it is not selling that well. The coin is not shipping until next month, so that may be why sales are weak at this point. But so far it looks like it is tracking around what the Harriet Tubman coin did, so this is why i say to keep an eye on mint sales, as it is possible more coins sell at these drastically reduced numbers going forward.
Just to state what I did earlier, the Harriet Tubman gold unc coin is the modern king of all modern coins by type and mint state of all US mint releases, and is a top 11 all-time coin if you add in classic coins. The 10 lower classic coins are the two large 1915 PanPac gold, early 1800's classic head cents, liberty seated half and quarter no drapery, liberty seated dime no stars, capped $2.50 gold large and small, capped $5 gold small, and the 1907 Indian $10 gold.
@HalfDime said:
This weeks sales report only shows a drop of one coin for the Harriet Tubman Gold UNC coin, from 1,293 to 1,292. The numbers in the original post have been updated. The Greatest Generation gold UNC was unchanged.
Here is an interesting development. The USMC gold unc sales for the second week saw a sharp drop (now only at 653), and it is not selling that well. The coin is not shipping until next month, so that may be why sales are weak at this point. But so far it looks like it is tracking around what the Harriet Tubman coin did, so this is why i say to keep an eye on mint sales, as it is possible more coins sell at these drastically reduced numbers going forward.
Just to state what I did earlier, the Harriet Tubman gold unc coin is the modern king of all modern coins by type and mint state of all US mint releases and is a top 11 all-time coin if you add in classic coins. The 10 lower classic coins are the two large 1915 PanPac gold, early 1800's classic head cents, liberty seated half and quarter no drapery, liberty seated dime no stars, capped $2.50 gold large and small, capped $5 gold small, and the 1907 Indian $10 gold.
The 2024 Flowing hair gold privy at 230 minted should be included in your list if you are counting modern mintages and values.
@Goldminers said:
The 2024 Flowing hair gold privy at 230 minted should be included in your list if you are counting modern mintages and values.
Hi, the 2024 Privy Gold Flowing Hair by type is added to the other gold Flowing Hair coins the mint produced, so it is part of a mintage of about 9,974 coins, not just 230.
Comments
At this point the commemorative gold ship has sailed. At this point, there needs to be another way to get a $35 per coin surcharge. Since silver dollars have a $10 per coin surcharge, you can always have another silver dollar design that will sell more coins and bring higher surcharge revenue than a low mintage gold piece. Gold already has a higher entry barrier to collect than silver due to costs. People who buy one silver design are more inclined to buy the second silver design due to a lower barrier to buy it. The sales figures of the 2006 Franklin coins bear this out. Get rid of gold commemoratives and now it is a closed series.
Look at the Tubman gold sales 7,239 combined all finishes x 35 = 253,635 in surcharges
Look at the Tubman silver sales 33,019 combined all finishes x 10 = 330,190 in surcharges
Look at the Tubman clad sales 24,435 combined all finishes x 5 = 122,175 in surcharges
In terms of dollar amounts, clad actually performs worse than gold. So if we are fixing gold then we also need to fix clad which is why I suggested commemorative large cents with the same $5 surcharge per coin.
I did purchase five of the six Greatest Generations options, missing only the uncirculated gold. I did purchase four of the six Tubman options, skipping the gold coins. I am glad I bought the three piece gold set for "only" $836.
The price of gold being what it is, how many of the previous issues have been melted, rendering their populations lower than the Tubman uncs?
Several dealers have been selling the modern gold commems at bullion prices for many years. That's basically a liquidation. With Mint premiums greater than 35% on the buy side, the incentive is not to buy the newer issues, but to liquidate the older issues at melt.
I knew it would happen.
If a dealer has these in inventory and the spot price increases substantially, I can see they will sell it to a refiner, especially if they have a large(r) number tying up a lot of capital (to them). I read of this happening (2nd hand) with the First Spouse coins.
I just don't think it will make any long-term difference to the value as a collectible because this "scarcity" or "rarity" doesn't really increase the collectible appeal of this coinage. None of it is actually scarce (much less rare) and almost no collectors will pay high prices and keep it as a long-term hold for this reason. This is speculation, not collecting. I used to have this discussion with South African based collectors regularly when it was my primary collecting interest. It was obvious (virtually) none of them were actually interested in the coin as a collectible, only for "investment".
>
They were only ignorant of how things would play out in the future. No one at the time could have foreseen with any certainty how high gold would go, or how low mintages would go.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
There is no sales report yet for this week due to New Years, maybe they get it out later, or next Tuesday at the latest. It will have the final weekly sales and should be close to final numbers. The true final numbers don't happen until the mint does an audit, and this is usually completed months later, but chances are the numbers will be very close to these (within a few coins). Since the sales numbers are historic lows, and they barely sold about 1,300 each, there should not be much discrepancy in them.
For those that missed out, the U.S. Marines commems go on sale tomorrow.
I remember in 1986 when the Statue of Liberty uncirculated gold $5 traded as high as $650 (around $2000 in today's dollars) due to its "insanely low" mintage of 95,000.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
I have updated the sales numbers to the first week of 2025. These sales should be close to final numbers for the 2024 commemoratives. This means new record lows.
i wouldn't be so sure
I will be happy if they keep going lower. That means the rarest modern coin set, and almost a top ten set by type in mint state going back over 100 years. If you take out the two panpac coins, you have to go back 200 years.
Can you quote those for our benefit?
Well, just Love coins, period.
Hi,
Yes I put the final numbers in the original post. The latest is
2021 Law Enforcement 1,753
2022 Negro Leagues Baseball 1,507
2022 Purple Heart 1,677
2024 Greatest Generation 1,377
2024 Harriet Tubman 1,293
The Harriet Tubman gold coin broke under 1,300, which is very good for collectors.
Great ideas, but it wouldn't make a huge difference until they face the reality that their mark ups are too high. That makes the majority, especially limited budget collectors, be sour towards the mint and step back to reevaluate.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
Completely different point. They were ignorant, regardless of the future. They could have bought 30% more gold. Period. Whether gold went up or down or mintages went up or down. These were ALWAYS a horrible bullion play.
Why?
Martin
If I said this, what coin would you think of?
It's a major gold coin that sold poorly because of high cost, had an economic context, a limited appeal, and low demand. If it sounds familiar, it is not about the Harriet Tubman coin, but this is about the large 1915 PanPac gold coins.
High cost: The $50 coins were sold for $100 each, double their face value. This was prohibitively expensive for most people, considering the average American's annual income in 1915 was approximately $1,250.
Economic context: The coins were released during a time when $100 was a significant sum of money, making them accessible only to the wealthiest buyers.
Limited appeal: The coins were primarily of interest to collectors and wealthy individuals, rather than the general public.
Low demand: There was tepid demand for these commemorative coins, likely due to their high cost and limited practical use
Almost all of these could also be said for the Harriet Tubman coins. Eventually nobody will know why this coin only sold 1,293 coins, and they won't care. All that will matter is the final mintage and how many other coins like it compare. Yes, there is a chance another coin comes in lower, I have said how it might happen. But anyone who bought this coin should be happy as it is a great starting point for a major gold collection that is historic. Only about 11 other coins in the history of the mint have so few coins by type in mint state.
.
The key words here are "mint state". A huge majority of collectors bought the proofs, even though the mint state coins were slightly cheaper and it was widely known that mint state commems typically have a much lower mintage. The price of the uncirculated 2024 gold commems will always be constrained by the higher availability of, and collector preference for, the much more available and nicer looking proofs.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
I'm not aware of anyone buying the First Spouse coins as a bullion play, since AGE's and other bullion coins were universally known to have a lower premium to gold. Purchasers of the First Spouse series were either collectors, or speculators betting on a low-mintage premium. For speculators, the chief advantage of the coins' gold content was to limit downside risk if the anticipated demand failed to materialize. That's exactly what eventually happened. The speculators were not "ignorant" at all, they were taking a knowledgeable calculated risk. They were wrong about the low-mintage premium, but they were absolutely correct about limiting their downside risk, and this extra "insurance" netted them a well-deserved profit despite the coins' collapse in demand.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
‘’I'm not aware of anyone buying the First Spouse coins as a bullion play’’
Well I was very much aware of that play (as I was one of 2 dealers recommended to buy the coins from at that time in addition to auction houses, eBay, etc). The recommendation in or about late 2007 was made to about 69,000 paid subscribers to a newsletter at the time. Buy Jefferson Liberty MS Spouse coins to have “2 ways to win”. Way #1- the Liberty series gold coins go up numismatically. Way #2 - gold spot rises and the coins go up that way. Back then, the Mint (that released the coins on August 30, 2007) sold the 1/2 oz. coins for $429.95 (melt of $860/oz). Right now, the coins melt for nearly $2,700/oz. So, the coins more than tripled in gold value after failing numismatically. A source on the net just stated to me (but I can not verify this) that $430 invested in the S&P 500 index late 2007, is worth about $1,350 today (but might not account for “dividends”). Anyway, it appears this “bullion play” (“Way #2) roughly performed close to the S&P, even after the numismatic play failed miserably.
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin.
The post i was responding to indicated that the buyers of the spouse coins would be very happy because the increase in gold price made them whole, despite the premium. As i first responded, there is no reason to be happy that you bought less bullion to benefit from the bullion increase. The numismatic premium was forever lost
The proofs do not always look nicer, there is a certain character to mint state coins that proof coins lack. Depends on the coin really.
If someone bought the Spouse coins for the single purpose of benefiting from the bullion increase, your theory is correct. But that's not what happened. Any serious buyer of the Spouse coins was well aware of less expensive alternatives for a pure bullion play. They were willing to pay a premium for the Spouse coins for the chance of a rise in the numismatic premium. That bet did not pay off, but that does not make Spouse coin buyers "ignorant". It's likely that most of them owned pure bullion coins also, and their Spouse holdings amounted to a side bet on the numismatic premium. There is plenty of reason for Spouse buyers to be happy the way things turned out.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
If someone bought the Spouse coins for the single purpose of benefiting from the bullion increase, your theory is correct. But that's not what happened. Any serious buyer of the Spouse coins was well aware of less expensive alternatives for a pure bullion play. They were willing to pay a premium for the Spouse coins for the chance of a rise in the numismatic premium. That bet did not pay off, but that does not make Spouse coin buyers "ignorant". It's likely that most of them owned pure bullion coins also, and their Spouse holdings amounted to a side bet on the numismatic premium. There is plenty of reason for Spouse buyers to be happy the way things turned out.
This is exactly the case, I think.
I knew it would happen.
This weeks sales report only shows a drop of one coin for the Harriet Tubman Gold UNC coin, from 1,293 to 1,292. The numbers in the original post have been updated. The Greatest Generation gold UNC was unchanged.
Here is an interesting development. The USMC gold unc sales for the second week saw a sharp drop (now only at 653), and it is not selling that well. The coin is not shipping until next month, so that may be why sales are weak at this point. But so far it looks like it is tracking around what the Harriet Tubman coin did, so this is why i say to keep an eye on mint sales, as it is possible more coins sell at these drastically reduced numbers going forward.
Just to state what I did earlier, the Harriet Tubman gold unc coin is the modern king of all modern coins by type and mint state of all US mint releases, and is a top 11 all-time coin if you add in classic coins. The 10 lower classic coins are the two large 1915 PanPac gold, early 1800's classic head cents, liberty seated half and quarter no drapery, liberty seated dime no stars, capped $2.50 gold large and small, capped $5 gold small, and the 1907 Indian $10 gold.
The 2024 Flowing hair gold privy at 230 minted should be included in your list if you are counting modern mintages and values.
My US Mint Commemorative Medal Set
Hi, the 2024 Privy Gold Flowing Hair by type is added to the other gold Flowing Hair coins the mint produced, so it is part of a mintage of about 9,974 coins, not just 230.